Cargando…

Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and safety of clinical complications associated with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) by meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic datab...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zhao, Ke, Li, Lin-Da, Li, Tong-Tong, Xiong, Yong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9482522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36124069
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/6488674
_version_ 1784791474495291392
author Zhao, Ke
Li, Lin-Da
Li, Tong-Tong
Xiong, Yong
author_facet Zhao, Ke
Li, Lin-Da
Li, Tong-Tong
Xiong, Yong
author_sort Zhao, Ke
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and safety of clinical complications associated with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) by meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for clinical studies on complications related to the treatment of RLDH with PELD. The search time extended from the databases' inception until May 2021. RevMan5.4 software was used for meta-analysis after two researchers independently scanned the literature, gathered data, and assessed the bias risk of the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 8 clinical studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial and 7 cohort studies including 906 individuals, were included. According to the results of the meta-analysis, the overall complications (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04-0.83, p = 0.03) and dural tear rates (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01-0.92, p = 0.04) of PELD were lower than those of traditional fenestration nucleus pulposus removal. Moreover, the PELD group had a greater recurrence rate compared to the MIS-TLIF group (OR = 19.71, 95% CI: 3.68-105.62, p = 0.0005), and the difference was statistically significant. However, compared with MED and MIS-TLIF, there were no significant differences in the incidence of overall complications, dural tear, nerve root injury, and incomplete nucleus pulposus removal (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: PELD is an effective and safe method for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, with a lower incidence of complications and higher safety profile than traditional fenestration nucleus pulposus removal.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9482522
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher Hindawi
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-94825222022-09-18 Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis Zhao, Ke Li, Lin-Da Li, Tong-Tong Xiong, Yong Biomed Res Int Research Article OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the incidence and safety of clinical complications associated with percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy (PELD) for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation (RLDH) by meta-analysis. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, The Cochrane Library, and Web of Science electronic databases were searched for clinical studies on complications related to the treatment of RLDH with PELD. The search time extended from the databases' inception until May 2021. RevMan5.4 software was used for meta-analysis after two researchers independently scanned the literature, gathered data, and assessed the bias risk of the included studies. RESULTS: A total of 8 clinical studies, including 1 randomized controlled trial and 7 cohort studies including 906 individuals, were included. According to the results of the meta-analysis, the overall complications (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.04-0.83, p = 0.03) and dural tear rates (OR = 0.11, 95% CI: 0.01-0.92, p = 0.04) of PELD were lower than those of traditional fenestration nucleus pulposus removal. Moreover, the PELD group had a greater recurrence rate compared to the MIS-TLIF group (OR = 19.71, 95% CI: 3.68-105.62, p = 0.0005), and the difference was statistically significant. However, compared with MED and MIS-TLIF, there were no significant differences in the incidence of overall complications, dural tear, nerve root injury, and incomplete nucleus pulposus removal (P > 0.05). CONCLUSION: PELD is an effective and safe method for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation, with a lower incidence of complications and higher safety profile than traditional fenestration nucleus pulposus removal. Hindawi 2022-09-10 /pmc/articles/PMC9482522/ /pubmed/36124069 http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/6488674 Text en Copyright © 2022 Ke Zhao et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Zhao, Ke
Li, Lin-Da
Li, Tong-Tong
Xiong, Yong
Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis
title Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis
title_full Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis
title_fullStr Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis
title_short Percutaneous Endoscopic Lumbar Discectomy for the Treatment of Recurrent Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Meta-analysis
title_sort percutaneous endoscopic lumbar discectomy for the treatment of recurrent lumbar disc herniation: a meta-analysis
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9482522/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36124069
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2022/6488674
work_keys_str_mv AT zhaoke percutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyforthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniationametaanalysis
AT lilinda percutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyforthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniationametaanalysis
AT litongtong percutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyforthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniationametaanalysis
AT xiongyong percutaneousendoscopiclumbardiscectomyforthetreatmentofrecurrentlumbardischerniationametaanalysis